A Little Known Expert on the Harper Crime Agenda?

Paula Mallea didn't make it to the short list for the recent speakers forum at Church of the Redemmer in Toronto.  But not for lack of trying.  People on the organizing committee simply had not heard of her.  I hope to contribute to changing that in whatever small way this blog may be able.  Paula is an expert around criminal justice having worked for 15+ years as a lawyer in Canada.  Paula is also an expert on the conservative governments crime agenda.  Included here is a copy of an article posted on Rabble, but originally written for the Centre for Policy Alternatives(CFPA).  It was while visiting the web site at CFPA that I first discovered Paula and her writing. She had several articles and one longer study published at that time in 2009.  I was inspired to contact her and asked if she could come to Toronto to speak on ideas for how people could oppose the crime agenda.  She agreed, but the pieces just havn't come together so far.  If the CFPA, Rabble, and I couldn't get Paula Mallea's name out there maybe her new book, Fearmonger can.    sheryl jarvis                                                                                                                                                                   For a summary and where to buy the book see: http://canadianbookshelf.com/Books/F/Fearmonger                                                                                                                                             To read her earlier work at the CFPA follow: http://www.policyalternatives.ca/search/apachesolr_search/paula%20mallea

Omnibus crime bill won't reduce victimization rates

By Paula Mallea

October 27, 2011

Harper, Nicholson and Toews are selling their snake-oil crime bill by presuming to speak on behalf of victims. When told that the crime rate has been declining for 20 years, they reply that one victim is one too many. When advised that statistics do not support their approach, they say most crimes go unreported by their victims. When criticized for the cost of their simplistic and counterproductive legislation, they reply that crimes cost victims $99 billion per year.

Let's be clear. One victim is too many, and whatever we can do to reduce victimization rates should be done. However, the omnibus crime bill will not achieve that objective. It will contribute mightily to a continuing structural deficit because of the colossal costs involved. And paying for this crime bill means programs that effectively prevent crime and rehabilitate offenders will never be funded.
Victims are not all made the same. They do not all support the strictly punishment-oriented approach of the Harper government. Why not let them speak for themselves?

Arlène Gaudreault, President of the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, objects to the way politicians are usurping the legitimate voices of victims. She says victims are "increasingly exploited and used as a tool for partisan purposes by political parties of all stripes. Victims' rights are used to legitimize more crime control, but that discourse does not express the position of all victims. . . . It does not serve the cause of victims, and we reject Canada's decision to take this path." She says that "measures to help parents and families reduce poverty and inequality are essential to combat and reduce criminal victimization."

Lorraine Berzins worked in federal penitentiaries for 14 years and was the victim of a hostage-taking. As spokesperson for the Church Council on Justice and Corrections, she says the Harper tough-on-crime agenda "goes so much against all the evidence about what keeps communities safe, and it does so much harm, and they are going to spend so much money, that it's really surprising that there isn't more opposition."
Steve Sullivan of Ottawa Victim Services (and erstwhile Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime) says "victims understand, better than most, that nearly all offenders will eventually be released from prison. . . . The best protection victims, their families, and the community will have is if the offender can learn to modify negative behaviour before he or she is released." In other words, rehabilitation programs are key.
In spite of eloquent pleas by victims' advocates, the Harper government forges ahead with a retrograde, antediluvian and discredited approach to criminal justice. Its only "solution" for any and all crimes is a long prison sentence.

There is virtually no hope that the omnibus crime bill can be defeated now that Mr. Harper has his majority. So we turn to Steve Sullivan, who recently sent a desperate crie de coeur to the Conservative caucus:
I believe the ministers when they say they care about victims. . . . Here is what they should do -- at the next cabinet meeting, tell the Prime Minister he should abandon his crime agenda and put the bulk of those resources into programs for victims and prevention. When the Prime Minister says no, and we all know he will, then they should stand up for victims and walk out.

Paula Mallea, B.A., M.A., Ll.B, practised criminal law for 15 years in Toronto, Kingston, and Manitoba. She acted mainly as defence counsel, with a part-time stint as prosecutor, and spent hundreds of hours in penitentiaries representing inmates. She is a Research Associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. She is the author of The Fear Factor: Stephen Harper's Tough On Crime Agenda. Her book, Fearmonger, a detailed critique of the Harper tough-on-crime agenda, published by Lorimer, is available in bookstores and online.

This article first appeared on Behind the Numbers.

Canadian Torture Victim

The conservatives have made new policies not to intervene internationally if Canadians get in trouble abroad. And not to request commutations of a death sentence when Canadians end up on death row in the US. The first 2 stories focus on torture in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.  The last story reflects on both the possibility of wrongful convictions which involve the death penalty and that Harper refuses to intervene on behalf of

Canadians who land on death row in the US!   

             sheryl jarvis, Oct, 2011

Canada finally makes contact with family in Saudi jail
Tuesday October 25 2011      By NOUMAN KHALIL


Canadian officials in Saudi Arabia finally established contact with a
Toronto man and his family, including two children, after they were
granted access to see them in a Jeddah prison, a foreign office
spokesperson told Focus.

"We have been granted access to see the family and we will continue to
engage with Saudi officials about this family's case," said John
Babcock, a spokesperson for the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs
Diane Ablonczy.


Babcock, however, didn't say anything about the charges, the release
or health condition of the children.

It is pertinent to mention here that Uddin Ahmed, a Canadian citizen
of Indian origin, has been living in Saudi Arabia along with his
family for the last few years on a work permit.


On Sept 22, the family, including Uddin Ahmed's wife and two
daughters, aged 18 months and five years, was charged and thrown in
Jeddah's Dhaban Prison for 'unknown' reasons.


Following the incident, MP Jim Karygiannis and members of the family
in Toronto criticized the government and its foreign office for
failing to secure their release and finding out about the health of
the kids - one of them is sick and needs medical care.


In response to a very emotional appeal from Junaid Ahmed, brother of
Uddin Ahmed, Karygiannis said the Minister Diane Ablonczy is ignoring
the two children.


In the appeal to the MP, a copy of which was also received by Focus,
Ahmed said: "We feel helpless and it is saddening to see lack of
Canadian government's intervention for a Canadian family that has been
imprisoned for a month without any reason."


He said the Canadian consulate in Saudi Arabia and ministry of foreign
affairs in Ottawa are not helpful and complained that, instead of
listening, the staff (at least one time) hung up the phone on him.


However, Babcock said: "Canadian consular officials are providing the
detained Canadian and his family, and their relatives with consular
assistance as requested, both in Canada and in Saudi Arabia.

"We hope that he (Karygiannis) is not trying to politicize this issue
for partisan reasons at the expense of the family, that is both
unhelpful and dangerous for the family. As the member knows, Canada
cannot intervene in the judicial affairs of another country," said
Babcock.


MP Karygiannis said: "Once again, this Conservative government is
saying to Canadians, 'If you travel and get into difficulty, don't
call on us, you are on your own.'"

Canadian fears more torture from officials in Bahrain

 By Thandi Fletcher, Postmedia News October 26, 2011

Naser Al-Raas says he's fearfully awaiting the moment Bahrain police handcuff, blindfold and drag him back to a jail, where he contends, he'll ruthlessly be tortured for a crime he did not commit.

Al-Raas, a Kuwait-born Canadian citizen, was sentenced this week for breaking Bahrain's illegal-assembly laws. He and 12 others were sentenced for having links to antigovernment demonstrations.

Al-Raas, 28, is free pending an appeal, but could be arrested before the scheduled Nov. 22 court date. If so, he is certain he will be tortured again. Earlier this year, Al-Raas said he was kidnapped and beaten for a month in an underground prison.

"The main thing that was going through my head was 'How will I survive?' Al-Raas told Postmedia News on Wednesday, calling via Skype from Bahrain as he believes his phone lines likely are tapped. "I saw death many times."

On March 20, Al-Raas was leaving Bahrain after a three-week visit to check up on his five sisters and ensure they were safe amid the political unrest enveloping the tiny Persian Gulf country.

Pro-democracy protests that broke out in February amid the fervour of the Arab Spring were crushed by Bahraini security forces, backed by Saudi troops. The government says 24 people were killed, including four police officers, while the opposition puts the count at 31.

Al-Raas was returning to Kuwait where he worked as an IT specialist.

At Bahrain International Airport, four policemen in civilian clothes ambushed and forced him into a tiny office where he was beaten and held at gunpoint, Al-Raas recalled.

They blindfolded him, took him to an undisclosed location, and subjected him to a mock execution where bullets were repeatedly fired around him.

For a month, he was held hostage, taken to an underground prison cell where he endured the screams of others. He said he witnessed one man being tortured until he was dead.

When it was his turn, he said his torturers took him to a wooden room, blindfolded him, and tied him to a chair with ropes. They beat him with a rubber hose, kicked him with military boots, and electrocuted him. Sometimes they would spit into his mouth and force him to swallow, he said.

Other times, he would be forced to stand up for hours at a time without rest and was beaten when he tried to sleep, said Al-Raas.

"I could not sit, I could not sleep. Whenever I moved, I was beaten by many officers," said Al-Raas.

Often the blows were targeted at his chest, where he has scars from two open-heart surgeries.

Al-Raas has pulmonary hypertension, a heart and lung disease that requires careful medical attention and anti-clotting medication.

When he asked for his medicine, his requests were denied and the torture intensified, said Al-Raas.

A month after he was arrested, Al-Raas said he was forced to make an on-camera confession, threatened to not speak to the media and told not to tell anybody about the torture. Then finally, he was released.

Once free, Al-Raas pleaded to have his Canadian passport, which was seized during his arrest, returned. On June 7, when security officials told him he could come get his passport, he was arrested and beaten again, and charged with kidnapping a Bahraini police officer.

He denied the accusations and was taken to military court earlier this month, where he was acquitted of all charges.

But on Tuesday, he was found guilty in civilian court on other charges, for participating in protests and publicly inciting hatred and contempt against the regime.

Amnesty International is now urging Canada's federal government to pressure Bahraini authorities to drop the charges against Al-Raas, who they said is being held as a prisoner of conscience.

"In our view, there is absolutely no reasonable basis for the charges," said Alex Neve, secretary general for Amnesty International in Ottawa. "Now that the conviction has happened, it's vitally important that the Canadian government bring considerable pressure to bear on Bahraini authorities to drop the charges and for the verdict and sentence to be quashed."

On Wednesday, John Babcock, spokesman for Diane Ablonczy, the minister of state for foreign affairs, said Canadian consular officials in Ottawa and in Riyadh are providing consular assistance to Al-Raas and his family in Canada.

Al-Raas has lived on and off in Ottawa since 1996.

"Although the government of Canada cannot interfere in the judicial affairs of another country, we have made high level representations to Bahraini authorities to seek assurances that the individual is afforded due process and to ensure his well-being," Babcock said.

Babcock added the Canadian government is aware and concerned of reports that Al-Raas was mistreated while in detention in Bahrain, and has raised its concerns with the "appropriate authorities."

Although he has appealed the decision, Al-Raas said he has been advised to surrender himself to Bahraini authorities within 10 days.

For now, he is enjoying spending time with his fiancee Zainab, waiting in fear for the unpredictable moment Bahraini police may storm his home.

Since his arrest, Zainab has worked tirelessly to contact international human rights groups for help.

"Naser can't go there again," said Zainab, her voice thick with emotion. "(The police) are animals. They are not even human."        tfletcher@postmedia.com              Twitter.com/thandi_fletcher

Reflections in the wake of Troy Davis’ execution
    Human Rights . . . Here & There


Written by  Sonya Nigam Posted Date: October 10, 2011


On Sept. 21, 2011, the American state of Georgia executed Troy Davis.
Like many organizations that fought for a stay of his execution, the
International Association of Lawyers was deeply disappointed with this
final turn of events.


In its press release the association expressed its support for a
commutation of the sentence to the Georgia State Board of Pardons and
Paroles and the district prosecutor, Larry Chisolm. The association
raised the same issues cited by many others: the fragile nature of the
evidence that Troy Davis actually shot police officer Mark MacPhail,
the disappointing inability of the American legal system to re-examine
the evidence, and the perpetuation of errors that “tarnish the justice
system on the whole.” The press release states, “Apart from the fact
that it constitutes a form of legalized violence that trivialises and
even legitimizes violent behaviour among individuals, it also promotes
an atmosphere of vengeance and brutality that is incompatible with the
idea of justice and, above all, human rights.”


A huge number of people were mobilized to stop this execution. This
appeared to many to be a case of supreme injustice considering the
evidentiary problems with the case: several recantations by
eyewitnesses, admissions of guilt by the alternative suspect, Davis’
clear and continuous assertions of innocence, and no incriminating
physical evidence or a murder weapon.

The execution was scheduled for 7 p.m. For reasons that have not been
explained, the Supreme Court delayed the execution. According to press
reports, the mood of the crowd outside the prison brightened, only to
be dashed about four hours later. Davis’ execution was a very
emotional and deeply saddening event. In a recent Huffington Post
article, David Protess, president of the Chicago Innocence Project,
wrote that the result should have been expected. “Troy Davis never had
a chance,” he wrote. “From the day he was arrested, Troy Davis had
three strikes against him.”


Davis was black, and MacPhail was white. According to the Death
Penalty Information Center’s web site, where there is interracial
murder, the likelihood of execution is much higher if the accused is
black and the victim is white. Protess wrote, “In the past three
decades, 255 blacks have been executed for killing whites, while only
17 whites have been put to death for killing blacks.” Citing the U.S.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, he continued, “During the same period,
almost 80 per cent of executions involved inmates convicted of
murdering whites, even though half the murder victims in society were
black.


“MacPhail was a police officer. Law enforcement, charged with
protecting all citizens equally, protects some more equally than
others. The murder of a police officer compels prosecutors to pull out
all the stops to get a conviction and death sentence. State law makes
the murder of an officer a capital offense. If MacPhail had been the
mayor of Savannah, his murderer would not have been eligible for the
death penalty.”

He continues: “The crime happened in the South. Three Southern states
(Texas, Virginia, and Florida) account for the majority of all
executions since 1976, according to a recent report by the NAACP Legal
Defense and Educational Fund. Georgia ranks seventh in the country in
total executions, and its death row is one of the nation’s largest.”

The recorded moments of Davis’ final hours are so human it is
difficult not to be moved. Associated Press reporter Greg Bluestein
was one of five reporters to witness the execution. He wrote: “Death
watch began at 7 a.m. on Sept. 20, a day he spent meeting with
visitors, watching TV, and talking to his attorneys. A nurse brought
him a fish oil pill and other unspecified medications around 9:20 p.m.
and he was asleep within half an hour.


“He awoke the next morning and refused his breakfast tray. He stayed
in bed until about 7:50 a.m. when he was strip-searched and escorted
to the shower. The prison warden met with him a few minutes after he
finished shaving, and the first of his 28 visitors came to see him at
that morning.

“He turned down his lunch at noon and, after the last visitor left
about six hours later, refused to eat an early dinner, requesting only
the grape drink on the tray. Guards spotted him praying around 6:45,
and 15 minutes later, when his execution was scheduled to begin, he
was napping. He awoke an hour later, called his attorney for an update
and asked the guards to bring in some food. He spent the next few
hours on and off the phone with his lawyer awaiting news on his fate,”
continues Bluestein.


“He probably heard that the Supreme Court denied his request for a
last-minute stay shortly before guards came into the room at 10:28. A
few minutes later, he was strapped to the gurney and execution
witnesses started filing in. It was over at 11:08, when authorities
pronounced him dead and cleared the death chamber.”

In Canada the last hangings took place in 1962. The death penalty was
officially removed from the Criminal Code in 1976 and replaced with a
mandatory life sentence without possibility of parole for 25 years for
first-degree murder. Finally for military personnel, the death penalty
was removed from the National Defence Act in relation to the most
serious military offences, including treason and mutiny, in 1998.


While the current government says it has no intention to re-open the
death penalty debate, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he
believes in the use of the death penalty in some cases. The current
Conservative government has modified Canadian policy and no longer
requests stays of execution for Canadians who find themselves on death
row in the United States.


Further, the government has decided, even in these very uncertain
economic times, to devote a significant amount of its budget to
expanding prison facilities. Through the new omnibus bill C-10, the
“safe streets and communities act,” it is signalling it wants to put
more Canadians in jail for crimes that did not necessarily receive
jail time in the past.


Are Canadians being co-opted to accept a black-and-white law-and-order
agenda as we hang on to the fiscal conservatism of the current
government as a life vest against the current tide of economic
uncertainty? Will we slowly start thinking differently, and at some
point accept that it is OK to kill in the name of justice, even when
we know that our justice system is a flawed human invention? Or, will
our knowledge of the cases like David Milgaard and Steven Truscott
safeguard us from this mistake?

Safe Streets and Communities Act - Speaker's Forum Summary

Organizing with Anti-Oppression in Mind

As organizers for the event we were cognizant of the fact that our speakers should be representative of those most likely to be impacted by the conservative crime agenda. We wanted to ensure that we heard from women, aboriginal peoples, and other people of colour, as well as those who have already been criminalized and have “done time”.

While I had my concerns along the way about how successful we would be in this part of our endeavour. Tuesday was a testament to, I believe, our success.

Tuesday night was a success. All our speakers turned up, had important points to make and engaged the audience (of 225 people) by answering their questions directly. In this way our format was a little different than many speakers forums I have attended. The audience had a chance to submit written questions which were then passed to our moderator and put directly to the speakers.

Gladue

We heard from a really lovely, intelligent, young, aboriginal woman named Krysta Williams from the Native Youth Sexual Health Network. Krysta reminded us about the optimism many felt when we as a society made the progressive and extremely warranted move to institute what became known as Gladue courts. Gladue was intended to ensure that sentencing judges take the context of vulnerable, usually minority persons lives into account. One of the main intentions for its use is to reflect the ongoing effects of colonization in sentencing aboriginal men and women.

Unfortunately Gladue is not being used nearly as frequently as it should be and only a few cities have instituted separate Gladue courts. Krysta warned that Bill C10 will be at serious conflict with Gladue particularly where mandatory minimums are concerned. If a judge must give a minimum sentence that fact in and of itself conflicts with the stipulations in Gladue and how they are to be considered.

The Native Youth Sexual Health Network  www.nativeyouthsexualhealth.com

For Information on Gladue: http://www.turtleisland.org/news/news-gladue.htm

The Native Women's Association of Canada at www.nwac.ca

National Film Board Native Canadian Projects http://www3.nfb.ca/enclasse/doclens/visau/index.php?mode=theme&language=english&theme=30662&film=16933&excerpt=612109&submode=about&expmode=2

The Revolving Door of the Drug War

Greg Simmons has spent 14 years of his life traversing the dark corridor's of Canada's prisons. He is a survivor of the drug war. Greg like most of us who have used drugs in a manner disruptive to our lives, did what many of us do to support our habits...he sold drugs to other drug users. Greg had an interesting take on the effects of longer, tougher sentences on the choices law breakers will make. He suggested that many will become more reckless. This is not the first time I have heard this refrain from so called career criminals. My ex of 13 years spent many years in and out of the system as well. I recall hearing that sediment from him and from other guys with similar histories as his. “If the sentence is going to be harsh then I will avoid it at all costs and if they are to take me out, I will go down with a vengeance.”

Greg also expressed repeatedly his concern for victims of violent crime and championed restorative justice programs as opposed to prison or in addition to at sentencing. He spoke of the need for healing on both sides of the equation. The victim or survivor and the prisoner.

Greg is both client and volunteer at PASAN – the Prisoner HIV/AIDS Support Action Network. www.pasan.org

Giving Victims a Voice?

We also heard from Steve Sullivan, the inaugural Federal Victims Ombudsman from 2007-2010. Steve began by noting the unlikeliness of the panelists sitting together Tuesday evening. He went on to say that in beginning the ombudsman position he felt the way many Canadians do – lock em up and throw away the key – Restorative programs are soft on crime and have no place in addressing violence. If the conservatives had their way we would all believe that victims and their advocates want nothing more than to see law breakers, especially those committing violent acts locked away forever with no rehabilitation or treatment. However many victims feel excluded, even silenced by traditional justice practices. Many don't want to see anyone jailed in their name, particularly without any voice in the matter. And most victims are never provided the support they need to move forward.

What changed Steve's mind was what he was hearing from the victims who had gone through a program of restoration. They were talking about healing. This was far different from what he was accustomed to hearing from those who had gone through a traditional court process. Many of those victims felt unheard and when they did feel included it was satisfying that someone was being held to account but healing was never mentioned.

Despite what some believe, restorative justice unlike traditional justice, promotes the need in people to accept true responsibility and to hold themselves to account. In fact what could be more real than facing the person you have hurt. One to one, face to face, confronting how you have impacted their life.

While I don't agree with everything Steve has to say about what we must do to stop victimization I do believe he is on the right track. Most importantly he uses his brain and seeks the truth as opposed to ideology.

Steve's blog can be found here. http://advocateforvictims.blogspot.com/

To learn more about restorative programs in Canada go to http://www.sfu.ca/cfrj/

HIV and HCV - Coerced Contraction

We also heard from Pat Allard, Deputy Director of Research and Policy at the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. The Network has long championed the plight of those with HIV/AIDS or at risk of contracting the virus. This includes those drug users who in Canada are sentenced to jails and prisons which refuse to provide harm reduction services and equipment. This stance ignores the fact that people are addicted and not in complete control of addictive compulsions. These two pieces combined leave people in a position where they are vulnerable to sharing scarce injection paraphernalia and more likely to contract HIV and/or HCV.

This in fact was my situation. I have HCV and am lucky not to have contracted HIV. There are everyday consequences which are ongoing in my life and that of my children. From health to financial to emotional.

Prisoners and Family

Pat reminded us to remember that those people we lock away are assets to their families, both financially and emotionally. The vast majority of them are parents, whose children also need to be considered.

I would ask you to consider too that most children which to remain with their parents. Separating them causes the most severe trauma. And later consequences often far outweigh any harm the parent may have caused society initially.

Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network: www.aidslaw.ca

Families and Corrections Canada Resource http://www.cfcn-rcafd.org/text/cfcn.html#story1

Sensible Drug Policy - Youth

We also heard from Caleb Chepesiuk from Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy. Caleb and I have collaborated and/or run into one another around a number of similar events which seek to educate others around drug policy, harm reduction, and this crazy conservative law and order agenda. I've come to know Caleb as a thoughtful and intelligent activist who is quick to realize the connections between the anti drug war, and anti poverty movements.

Caleb is a true advocate for the young. He knows many are at risk of being caught up in certain elements of this Bill C10. The conservatives claim that C10 will protect our kids from drug dealers but in reality it will actually transform the act of sharing a joint or passing a pill into trafficking, thus transforming our kids into drug dealers. Convictions of this sort will see them doing prison time.

Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy http://www.cssdp.org/

Sensible Drug Policy – Expert Analyst’s

Eugene Oscapella, a lawyer, professor, and founder of the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy agreed with Caleb about the effects this Bill will have on students. Eugenie’s expertise is in policy around issues such as privacy, human rights, illicit drugs, national security, and criminal justice. Eugene told us that Bill C10 will potentially see as many as 80% of his students criminalized, with 10-20% of them at risk for imprisonment.

He used the example of a group of college kids at a party. He told us that those who share a tab of Ecstasy or Ketamine (special K) could see up to two years in prison under provisions targeting those who “traffic” (which includes sharing or passing drugs). Particularly if this occurs near a school, or in a place normally frequented by youth. Those most likely to be targeted by these provisions which could in some cases see mandatory prison terms of 3-5 years are other youth. Youth associate with youth. The dark stranger on the corner wont be the guy dealing to our kids, the best friend from grade school very well could be.

Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy. www.cfdp.ca

Ricky's Blog - Short. Sharp. Sentences.

Prisoner Blog

For those of you who might be interested in a male take on the prison system, prison issues, and the human condition, "Ricky's Blog" is a good one.   Richard Atkinson has spent a substantial portion of his life in Canada's prisons.  He co-created a really interesting TV program called Prison TV in the 90's.  It aired in Kingston, ON.  And is one of the most interesting, really amazing projects I have seen in a Canadian context which gave an honest look into the prison and which included prisoners and their families.  Ricky and Brian have made portions of those shows available on Ricky's blog.

Ricky's Blog - Short. Sharp. Sentences.

Speakers Forum - Tuesday, Oct. 18

Please come out tomorrow night to Church of the Redeemer at 162 Bloor St. W. for an important discussion around the Conservative government's law and order agenda.  

What are the options to addressing community harm aside from prison and learn what triggers people to break the law in the first place.  

 
Learn about the impacts of harm and the justice system on survivor's, lawbreakers, family members, and the community.  

Be a part of the discussion - Bring your questions for our panelists!

California's Inhumane Treatment of Prisoners

Back in July "The Oppressive Arm of the Canadian State" posted some information about a hunger strike at Pelican Bay and other prisons throughout California.  After much struggle and suffering on the part of prisoners who starved themselves in an effort to make a point clear about just how terrible, how inhumane are conditions in California SHU's not much if anything has changed.

 

California Prison Hunger Strike Ends, Conditions of "Immense Torture" Continue

 Monday 17 October 2011

by: Victoria Law, Truthout | Report 

 

Imagine a concrete room no more than eight by ten feet. It has no windows, only a perforated steel door facing a solid concrete wall. Fluorescent lights stay on 24 hours a day.

Now imagine being locked in that room.

This is the reality for 1,111 people locked in the Security Housing Unit (SHU) of California's Pelican Bay State Prison. The SHU comprises half of the prison. It is explicitly designed to keep prisoners in long-term solitary confinement under conditions of extreme sensory deprivation. Men are locked into their cells for at least 22 hours a day. Food is delivered twice a day through a slot in the cell door. They are allowed five hours a week of exercise in a cement yard the length of three cells with a roof only partially open to the sky.

Prison administrators place men in the SHU either for a fixed term for violating a prison rule or for an indeterminate term because they have been accused of being prison gang members, often by confidential informants and highly dubious evidence. Prisoners who have been "validated" as gang members are released from the SHU into the general prison population only if they "debrief" or provide information incriminating other prisoners. Debriefing can be dangerous to both the prisoner who debriefs and his family on the outside. In addition, prisoners are often falsely identified as gang members by others who debrief in order to escape the SHU. One does not necessarily need to be a gang member to be sent to the SHU: jailhouse lawyers and others who challenge inhumane prison conditions are disproportionately sent to the SHU. Mutope DuGoya is one of those men: he states that, in 2001, despite his work with Code 4, the prison's Scared Straight program and his record of remaining free of violations for six years, he was placed in SHU on the word of a confidential informant. (Letter from DuGoya, dated September 21, 2011.) Another prisoner, who has been in SHU for 21 years, writes, "Because I am here with people who the CDCR [California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation] have labeled as being gang-involved, the CDCR uses that to confirm that I am involved with a gang." (Letter from person in Pelican Bay SHU, dated September 26, 2011.)

These atrocities are not limited to Pelican Bay. California holds nearly 4,000 people in SHUs and nearly 14,500 in other forms of segregation within its prison system. Over 240 of these people are women, who are often guarded and watched by male staff, even when they are undressing, showering or on the toilet. Transgender and transsexual prisoners are often likely to be placed in isolation.

Pelican Bay State Prison opened in December 1989. Almost immediately, prisoners began filing complaints about abusive conditions.

In 1993, over 3,500 prisoners signed onto Madrid v. Gomez, a class-action lawsuit that charged prison officials with abuse and violation of their human rights. In 1995, the federal court issued injunctions aimed at eliminating excessive force, improving health care and removing prisoners with mental illness from the Security Housing Unit. Although he stated that conditions "hover on the edge of what is humanly tolerable," the presiding judge stopped short of declaring the physical structure of long-term solitary confinement unconstitutional.

In 1994, Steven Castillo, who charges that prison administrators placed him in SHU in retaliation for his hunger strikes and numerous lawsuits against CDCR, filed Castillo v. Alamedia. Seven years later, in 2001, Castillo and approximately 1,000 other prisoners at Pelican Bay and a second California prison launched a six-day hunger strike, protesting the prison's gang policy. The strike was suspended after California State Sen. Richard Polanco intervened and vowed to help broker a resolution. Although Polanco's office convened several meetings between corrections officials and prisoners over the next year, no changes resulted. In 2002, Castillo and 60 prisoners at Pelican Bay again launched a hunger strike. The strike lasted three weeks, but no changes in CDCR's debriefing policy occurred.

In 2004, ten years after Castillo v. Alamedia was filed, a settlement agreement was reached that, ostensibly, would reshape the debriefing policy governing release from SHU. However, the substantial changes promised never happened and, seven years later, conditions in SHU remain fundamentally unchanged.

In 2010, prisoners at Pelican Bay drafted and sent a Formal Complaint about conditions to lawmakers, prison and CDCR officials and then-Governor Schwarzenegger. "CDCR's response was 'file a grievance if you haven't already,'" recalled Todd Ashker, a co-author of the Complaint. "Then we were locked down, even more, in our cells from July 2010 to February/March 2011." During that time, the prisoners agreed that "something had to be done ... It was agreed, a peaceful protest via hunger strike was our best option, the goal being to expose the illegal policies and practices to the mainstream media (and thereby masses of people) and, with outside support, pressure/force meaningful changes!" (Letter from Todd Ashker, dated September 25, 2011.)

On July 1, 2011, SHU prisoners began a hunger strike with five core demands:

1. Eliminate group punishments for individual rules violations;
    
2. Abolish the debriefing policy and modify active/inactive gang status criteria;
    
3. Comply with the recommendations of the US Commission on Safety and Abuse in Prisons (2006) regarding an end to long-term solitary confinement;
    
4. Provide adequate food;
    
5. Expand and provide constructive programs and privileges for indefinite SHU inmates.

"No one wants to die," stated hunger-striker DuGoya. "Yet under this current system of what amounts to immense torture, what choice do we have? If one is to die, it will be on our own terms."

Over the course of the three-week hunger strike, at least 1,035 of the SHU's 1,111 inmates refused food. The strike spread to 13 other state prisons and involved at least 6,600 people incarcerated throughout California.

Outside prison walls, family members, advocates and concerned community members took action to draw attention to the hunger strike. In Oakland, supporters held a weekly vigil on Thursday evenings. On July 9, supporters organized demonstrations in cities throughout the US and Canada. On July 18, 200 family members, lawyers and outside supporters from across California converged upon CDCR headquarters in Sacramento, delivered a petition of over 7,500 signatures in support of the hunger strikers and then marched to Governor Brown's office to demand answers. That same day, supporters in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, New York City and Philadelphia also held solidarity rallies.

On July 14, two weeks into the strike, CDCR Undersecretary of Operations Scott Kernan spoke to representatives of the Pelican Bay hunger strikers. He promised that their demands would be addressed and that the CDCR would enact positive changes over time.

On July 20, Kernan and other CDCR administrators again met with hunger strike representatives. Again, Kernan made assurances about positive changes to SHU and stated that he would provide specifics about their demands in a couple of weeks. The hunger strike representatives met and discussed Kernan's proposals. They decided to temporarily suspend the hunger strike to allow CDCR a grace period to fulfill their promises.

The next month, on August 19, prisoner representatives met with Kernan and other administrators. Kernan had no specific plans regarding the hunger strikers' core demands, but, as the prisoner representatives noted, offered only "very vague, general terms, about CDCR staff working to come up with some type of step down program for inmates to get out of SHU, which does not require debriefing-informant status." The representatives asked that specific details be provided on paper to all SHU sections. Kernan agreed to begin providing documentation within two weeks.

Sparked by the hunger strike, its ensuing publicity and community pressure on legislators, the California Assembly's Public Safety Commission held a hearing on SHU conditions on August 23. Former SHU prisoners, family members, attorneys, advocates and psychiatrists testified about the need for substantial changes to SHU policies and practices. CDCR Undersecretary Scott Kernan, who was a negotiator with the hunger strike representatives, also testified.

On August 31, SHU staff issued memos stating that prisoners would be allowed to have handballs on the yard and the ability to purchase sweatsuits. If they remained free of disciplinary violations for one year and gained committee approval, they would be allowed to have a yearly photo taken and to purchase art pens and drawing paper from the prison canteen. None of the core demands were addressed.

In addition, many strike participants were issued a disciplinary memo stating, "Your behavior and actions were out of compliance with the Director's Rules and this documentation is intended to record your actions and advise that progressive discipline will be taken in the future for any reoccurrence of this type of behavior."

Prison officials have retaliated against the hunger strikers in other ways. According to Carol Strickman, an attorney with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, "Prisoners are receiving serious disciplinary write-ups, usually reserved for serious rules violations, for things like talking in the library or not walking fast enough. It's clear that prison officials are trying to intimidate these men and to make them ineligible for any privileges or changes that may be forced by the strike."

On September 2, a memo entitled Gang Management Proposal (dated August 25) was issued to the four principal representatives of the hunger strike. Hunger striker Antonio Guillen wrote that the proposal is, "by far the most punitive and restrictive program I have ever seen. It is way worse than what we have in place now and that's saying something because the current program is, in part, what prompted the hunger strike." It also widens the criteria from "'traditional prison gangs' " to "anyone they consider to be problematic." (Statement from Guillen that came with a letter dated September 27, 2011.) Kernan himself alluded to this during his testimony on August 23: "We believe that the current process, which targets six prison gangs, needs to be modified and what we really need to do is identify security threat groups ... our policies target just the prison gangs today and we're not capturing the inmates that perhaps should be segregated from our population."

Despite these threats, prisoners throughout California resumed their hunger strike on September 26. By the third day, nearly 12,000 were participating. The strike spread not only to 12 prisons inside California, but also to prisons in Arizona, Mississippi and Oklahoma that are housing California prisoners.

In response, the CDCR classified the strike as an organized disturbance and transferred hunger strikers form the SHU to Administrative Segregation, where they lose access to all of their personal possessions and are denied access to their mail (including legal mail). According to recent interviews with the men, they have only a jumpsuit, a mattress and a thin blanket.  The transfer could also negatively affect parole decisions. The retaliation has caused the number of hunger strikers to drop. In addition, hunger strikers at other prisons report that the CDCR has been undercounting the number of participants, refusing to mark men as hunger strikers if they drink liquids or touch the food tray.

Prison officials have also retaliated against outside supporters: Carol Strickman and Marilyn McMahon, executive director of California Prison Focus, had been involved in extensive discussions with corrections officials, including Kernan and leaders of the strike. On September 29, the Department of Corrections placed them under investigation, alleging that they "violated the laws and policies governing the safe operations of institutions within the CDCR." Both attorneys are banned from all California prisons until the investigation is concluded.  Attorneys who were able to visit reported that the CDCR has the air conditioning on high in 50-degree weather.

On October 13, prisoners at Pelican Bay ended their nearly-three week hunger strike after the CDCR guaranteed a comprehensive review of every prisoner in California whose SHU sentence is related to gang validation under new criteria. Two days later, hunger strikers at Calipatria State Prison stopped their strike to allow time to regain their strength.

"This is something the prisoners have been asking for and it is the first significant step we've seen from the CDCR to address the hunger strikers' demands," says Carol Strickman, a lawyer with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, "But as you know, the proof is in the pudding. We'll see if the CDCR keeps its word regarding this new process."

Long Term Conservative Plans to Expand the Prison Industrial Complex

The prison-industrial complex

A question we Canadians should be asking ourselves about the current prison expansion agenda of the Harper conservatives is this:  Why if imprisoning people does nothing to deter social harm ("crime"), why if it is so incredibly expensive, and destroys generations of families, if there are far more effective means of addressing root causes of "crime", why are the conservatives being so damned pig headed in insisting we must jail vulnerable Canadians?       [sheryl jarvis, Oct, 2011]
Read on for one likely explanation ....

Updated: October 13, 2011 3:33 PM

The Conservative omnibus Safe Streets and Communities Act makes no sense if the aim is to reduce burgeoning crime, since the same strategies were tried and seen to fail in the US, and the Canadian crime rate is going down anyway. Furthermore, it is proven that increased funding of education reduces street crime — how many street gang members have university degrees? Harsh sentences actually serve to harden inmates into career criminals and break up families so children don’t get proper attention, thus increasing the crime rate over time.

I would suggest that the Conservative enthusiasm for longer sentences, mandatory prison terms, and prison sentences for more crimes has nothing to do with reducing crime.

The US has an economically important incarceration industry that corporate interests want duplicated in Canada. Patiently, step by step, the Conservatives have been creating the conditions for this — billions of dollars to build more prisons, and “tough on crime” legislation to ensure a huge increase in the Canadian prison population. In the US, private prison corporations have their own trade fairs to attract businesses that use sweat shops abroad. Gone are the days of sewing mail bags, now inmates have been hired at very low cost to do dangerous jobs, like cleaning up the toxic BP oil spill, highly technical tasks like assembling missiles, and all points in between.

Private prisons are interested in making a profit. That means they cut corners on everything else, including rehabilitation (bad for business: they want returning convicts) medical care, and the pay of their staff. In other words, this is state-corporate business at its ugliest — trafficking in human misery. Of course the taxpayer will be paying the private prisons, the transfer of money from the taxpayer to corporations being the goal of all serious Liberal and Conservative machinations.

Also, the Conservatives are an authoritarian sect which wants Canadians running on fear, anger and patriotism. They spend our money on propaganda to make us self-righteously angry at criminals, see them as less than human and therefore deserving of any violations of their dignity or well-being the prisons care to carry out. The term “criminal” is increasingly broadened to include legitimate dissent to frighten people away from exercising their constitutional rights. Witness the police state tactics at the G20 meeting in Toronto which were used on innocent protesters and even passersby.

As the government increasingly uses the international bankster-created deficit to justify “austerity” measures imposed upon the rest of us, they expect popular resistance at some stage. That’s another contingency the prisons are waiting for.

So, despite the hype and lip service, the Conservative omnibus crime bill won’t, and isn’t meant to, reduce crime. That is either irrelevant or counterproductive to the real goals. It’s about upping intimidation against poor people generally, and setting up a lucrative prison-industrial complex at taxpayer expense. In meeting these hidden agendas it unfortunately makes a lot of sense.

Keith Newberry

 

The prison-industrial complex

Published: October 13, 2011 3:00 PM
Updated: October 13, 2011 3:33 PM

The Conservative omnibus Safe Streets and Communities Act makes no sense if the aim is to reduce burgeoning crime, since the same strategies were tried and seen to fail in the US, and the Canadian crime rate is going down anyway. Furthermore, it is proven that increased funding of education reduces street crime — how many street gang members have university degrees? Harsh sentences actually serve to harden inmates into career criminals and break up families so children don’t get proper attention, thus increasing the crime rate over time.

I would suggest that the Conservative enthusiasm for longer sentences, mandatory prison terms, and prison sentences for more crimes has nothing to do with reducing crime.

The US has an economically important incarceration industry that corporate interests want duplicated in Canada. Patiently, step by step, the Conservatives have been creating the conditions for this — billions of dollars to build more prisons, and “tough on crime” legislation to ensure a huge increase in the Canadian prison population. In the US, private prison corporations have their own trade fairs to attract businesses that use sweat shops abroad. Gone are the days of sewing mail bags, now inmates have been hired at very low cost to do dangerous jobs, like cleaning up the toxic BP oil spill, highly technical tasks like assembling missiles, and all points in between.

Private prisons are interested in making a profit. That means they cut corners on everything else, including rehabilitation (bad for business: they want returning convicts) medical care, and the pay of their staff. In other words, this is state-corporate business at its ugliest — trafficking in human misery. Of course the taxpayer will be paying the private prisons, the transfer of money from the taxpayer to corporations being the goal of all serious Liberal and Conservative machinations.

Also, the Conservatives are an authoritarian sect which wants Canadians running on fear, anger and patriotism. They spend our money on propaganda to make us self-righteously angry at criminals, see them as less than human and therefore deserving of any violations of their dignity or well-being the prisons care to carry out. The term “criminal” is increasingly broadened to include legitimate dissent to frighten people away from exercising their constitutional rights. Witness the police state tactics at the G20 meeting in Toronto which were used on innocent protesters and even passersby.

As the government increasingly uses the international bankster-created deficit to justify “austerity” measures imposed upon the rest of us, they expect popular resistance at some stage. That’s another contingency the prisons are waiting for.

So, despite the hype and lip service, the Conservative omnibus crime bill won’t, and isn’t meant to, reduce crime. That is either irrelevant or counterproductive to the real goals. It’s about upping intimidation against poor people generally, and setting up a lucrative prison-industrial complex at taxpayer expense. In meeting these hidden agendas it unfortunately makes a lot of sense.

Keith Newberry

Crime Agenda - Prison Expansion by Justin Piche

The USA have long been aware of certain carceral trends.  To be expected given their 30+ year history of tough on crime, war on drugs, far right, nut job ideology.  Trends like prison expansion through capital expenditures, and hiring spikes.  These are kept on the down low until new Law and Order changes are announced.   

Because we in Canada are not and never have been accustomed to this latest most unprecedented expansion of our judicial and prison systems we were not looking for these quite building projects - at least not before the conservative announcements of no less than 16 new law and order restrictions - not until then did many of us start questioning where the hell this crazy regime planned to lock away between 70 and 270% more people over the next few years.  Thankfully people like Justin Piche began asking these questions from the outset.  Thanks to his tenacity in submitting multiple requests to information applications those of us who care (a list I believe is growing daily) were made aware of the extent to which are prison system is being expanded.  

Please read on for updates from Justin on Harpers prison expansion plans.

 

Minister Toews - Is There a Plan for Regional Penitentiary Complexes or Would You "Rather Not Share"?

While the Conservative Government of Canada is set to announce a job creation plan tomorrow (read CBC News article), they may also be considering another strategy to address unemployment in Canada and other social ills prisons have become a panacea for - to build new regional penitentiary complexes.

According to a partial release of documents obtained through an Access to Information request filed with the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) as part of a research project I've undertaken with Humber Professor Greg McElligott, federal penitentiary system officials formed a "Modernization of physical infrastructure and planning of regional complexes Committee" in 2008. They have also been attending presentations by government corporations such as P3 Canada, Infrastructure Ontario, and Partnerships BC on the different forms of public-private partnerships that exist for establishing new capital projects since at least March 2008 (view documents here).

The contents of these documents raise a number questions that need to be directed towards Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. Most importantly among them is whether or not CSC has tabled a capital plan for regional complexes to Cabinet involving a private-public partnership for building, financing and maintaining these facilities.

According to a 6 December 2010 response by Minister Toews to an Order Paper question submitted by former Liberal Public Safety Critic Mark Holland (Q-471), CSC's "Long-term Accommodation Strategy and Investment Plan" was to be tabled "for consideration in March 2011". It is now October 2011 and some 7 months have passed. So the main question that the Minister needs to be asked is whether there is a plan for regional penitentiary complexes siting on his desk or if he'd "rather not share" those details with Canadians at this time.

Emergence of the Proposal for Regional Complexes

In 2007, the CSC Review Panel identified several deficiencies with the current fleet of federal penitentiaries including their age, the preponderance of space said to be inconducive to the provision of institutional security and programming, and the geographic dispersal of the facilities. With these issues and others in mind, the panel made the following recommendations:

"98. The Panel recommends that CSC pursue undertaking capital and operating investments in a new type of regional, penitentiary complex that responds to the cost-efficiency and operational-effectiveness deficits of its current physical infrastructure.

99. The Panel recommends that CSC develop a 'project development proposal' for consideration which takes into account the recommendations of Deloitte's October 4, 2007 Independent Review of the cost estimate for the construction and operation of a new correctional facility which was commissioned by the Panel.

100. The Panel recommends that in the interim, CSC institute a clear criteria to minimize authorization of retrofit projects".

It should be noted that the Review Panel's recommendations for regional complexes that would replace existing facilities did not account for an influx of new prisoners resulting from some Conservative punishment bills such as the Truth in Sentencing Act (2009) (note: Deloitte estimated each facility would contain 2,175 cells). As will be discussed further below, the proposition of limiting retrofit projects appears to have been ignored as CSC pursues a short-term accommodation strategy to deal with an increase in their prison population and a long-term accommodation strategy along the lines of the Review Panel's recommendations.

CSC's Transformation Team

Following the release of the report, CSC assembled a "Transformation Team" in early 2008 to implement the recommendations of the Review Panel. According to, then, CSC Senior Deputy Commissioner Don Head (now CSC Commissioner), part of their activities involved the development of a three-pronged plan to 'modernize' physical infrastructure (read May 2008 article):

Component 1 (retrofits)

"The first addresses the most severe problems associated with "rust-out" in our institutions. CSC was provided with resources in 2007-08 and 2008-09 to do exactly this. A priority list of repairs and improvements was identified, by institution, and we will be proceeding to implement these changes".

Component 2 (short-term accommodation strategy)

"A second and important requirement is the review of our current accommodation strategy and capital accommodation plan, particularly with respect to critical redevelopment and new construction plans. We must ensure that our current plans help us meet the immediate needs of the changing prisoner profile, while ensuring that we do not over-invest in infrastructure that could be replaced by regional complexes".

Component 3

(long-term accommodation strategy / regional complexes)

"Overall, a regional complex would comprise maximum-, medium- and minimum-security accommodation areas, appropriately separated within a common perimeter fence but sharing common services [...]

We are also moving forward in exploring the approach that will be used to enter into a public-private sector arrangement to assist us in the modernization initiative. It is important that we be well advised as we move forward. We have had a preliminary briefing by a new Crown corporation, the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships, which was established by the Government in the 2008 Budget to support public-private partnerships in maximizing financial investments. We have also had preliminary discussions with Partnerships BC, a provincial Crown agency to support such partnerships. Ongoing consultations with such groups will ensure that we do not move forward alone, but with expert advice and guidance.

[...]

Thirdly, we are putting together a CSC team to develop a business process overview. The overview will in a very detailed manner, describe all aspects of our institutional activities, from intake assessment to reintegration planning and community release. As well, it will define management and operational requirements related to security, and the day-to-day running of the institution. Consultation with regional staff is an equally important element of the creation of the overview.

During this planning period and beyond, full consideration will be given to the relationship of moving to a regional complex with the impact on staff. Every effort will be taken to ensure that the needs of institutional staff are considered in the transition process. This will include ongoing consultation with the unions, institutional staff and the communities that will be affected".

The Modernization of Physical Infrastructure and

Planning of Regional Complexes Committee

As noted at the beginning of this entry, the third component of CSC's so-called physical infrastructure modernization efforts including the development of a project plan for regional complexes has involved meetings with a number of agencies involved in public-private partnerships.

To date, documentation has been obtained from the following presentations that CSC officials have attended: 1) March 2008 - P3 Canada; 2) no date - Public Works and Government Services; 3) 2 April 2009 - Infrastructure Ontario; 4) 8 April 2008 - Public Works and Government Services Canada; 5) 4 June 2009 - meeting participants, Infrastructure Ontario (part I; part II), Partnerships BC; and 6) 20 January 2010 - P3 Canada.

Documentation has also been obtained from a 20-21 November 2008 meetings of the Modernization of Physical Infrastructure and Planning of Regional Complexes Committee and related e-mails (25 July 2008; 9 October 2008).

As this Committee continued its work, a CSC Task Force on Security published a report in August 2008 (read here) that, while supportive of a multi-security-level facility concept, proposed that the capacity of institutions adopting such a model should not exceed 500 prisoners. This is significantly lower than the number of prisoners that would be warehoused within institutions modelled along the approach discussed by Deloitte as part of the 2007 CSC Review Panel report. As such, questions need to be raised about what configuration federal penitentiaries are proposed to take under CSC's long-term accommodation strategy that was scheduled to be tabled to Minister Toews months ago.

A Short-term Accommodation Strategy

In the midst of working towards developing a plan for regional complexes, CSC was also in the process on putting together a short-term accommodation strategy to absorb an expected influx of new prisoners resulting from federal sentencing measures. The details of this aspect of the 'modernization' of federal penitentiary system infrastructure began to emerge as Minister Toews was increasingly pressed by journalists and opposition parliamentarians to explain how the Conservatives planned to absorb the expected influx of new prisoners resulting from their punishment agenda beginning in March 2010.

As pressure continued to mount, CSC Commissioner Don Head wrote an op-ed published on 22 June 2010 (read here) - the same day that the Parliamentary Budget Officer published an estimate of the costs associated with the Truth in Sentencing Act (2009) (read here) - that offered a few details regarding CSC's short- and long-term accommodation plans. Among the details shared was a plan to create 2,700 additional prison spaces by adding new units on the grounds of existing facilities, along with an "increase in shared cell accommodation", also known as double-bunking. While Minister Toews had previously suggested that Commissioner Head was engaging in "conjecture" when he suggested in e-mails and before parliamentary committee's that new institutions would be constructed (watch 18 March 2010 interview on CBC's Power & Politics with Evan Solomon), the op-ed mentioned that CSC was also pursuing a "long-term plan that takes into account the need to replace some penitentiaries that have stood the test of time for many decades and no longer meet the requirements of a modern correctional system".

As part of CSC's short-term accommodation strategy, the Conservatives announced the equivalent of 34 new units to be located on the grounds of existing institutions from August 2010 to January 2011 (read 14 February 2011 post). It is estimated that these facilities will add 2,552 new prisoner beds at a construction cost of $601 million. In the process, it appears as though CSC and the Conservatives are ignoring aspects of the recommendations made by the 2007 CSC Review Panel that sought to replace, not expand, the federal penitentiary system's aging fleet of institutions.

As more details emerge, it also appears that CSC is moving towards establishing additional multi-level institutions through these smaller capital projects. For instance, a new maximum-security unit is being established on the grounds of the medium-security Collins Bay Institution. Such measures have been criticized by a number of stakeholders ranging from Howard Sapers, the Correctional Investigator of Canada, to officials from the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers (read 2 August 2011 article by Rob Tripp).

Potential Carceral Futures

and the Need for Transparency

With the agency's long-term accommodation strategy scheduled to be submitted in March 2011, there is a need to ask whether or not the additions being erected as part of CSC's short-term accommodation strategy may in fact be money down the drain should the facilities where they are being erected be closed as the 2007 CSC Review Panel recommends.

Another scenario, whereby old facilities that the Review Panel recommended for closure do not go offline as intended as new prisons designed to replace them come online, is just as plausible given the history of penal infrastructure construction in Canada that often sees facilities like Kingston Penitentiary (built in 1835) remain in operation long after promises of their closure are made. If this turns out to be the case, CSC will continue to have a stock of aging penitentiaries, along with newer facilities, that will further entrench Canada's capacity to confine and punish at a tremendous economic and human cost.

Do Canadians have a right to know where or not there is a plan for regional complexes siting on Minister Toews' desk and what that plan entails? I suspect the federal government will take the position that we do not - after all, why give their critics more ammunition to denounce their punishment agenda that the best available evidence suggests will have a negligible impact on what we call 'crime'.

I do hope, however, that I'm wrong and that they may have the courage to give us our information so that we can decide for ourselves if we want to be paying prison mortgages in the decades ahead as my generation is asked to pay higher taxes, while expenditures on priorities such as education for our children, old age security for our parents, health care for all citizens, and other measures are rolled back under the banners of 'austerity' and 'smaller' government.

Punishment vs. Restorative Measures

PUNISHMENT V.S. RESTORATIVE MEASURES

One of the biggest problems with the sheer size of this bill is that all the various illegal activities and subsequent punishments get rolled into one.  It disallows proper critique.  And anyone brave enough to speak out against it is seen as soft on "crime" or as an apple from the same tree as the sex offenders and violent persons some of this act claims to target.

The simple fact of the matter is prison is good for only one thing and that is keeping those who are completely anti-social, so violent, and dangerous that they simply must be kept off the streets.  Those folks are few and far between and don't reflect the average person caged in Canada today.  That is an unemployed, poor, drug using abuse survivor, a person of colour, often a young man or a single mother.  Locking her up instead of seeking out community based alternatives means her children end up in the system.   

sheryl jarvis, Sept 2011

See what some Canadian's think about using community based alternatives such as restorative justice in the article below.

Emphasis on punishment shuns healing. Feds ignore power of restorative justice, critics charge

By Douglas Quan

There was a time when Manjit Virk would have liked nothing more than to wring the neck of Warren Glowatski, one of two teens convicted of murdering his daughter, Reena, "as if he were a chicken."
But in the fall of 2005, when the two came face to face in a semicircle of chairs in the basement of a church, something very different happened.
"It was the most unusual experience I had encountered in my life," the Victoria father later recounted in his book, Reena: A Father's Story.
"My daughter's killer was shaking hands with me."
This remarkable act of reconciliation is often cited as an example of the potential of restorative justice - the concept that true healing after a crime doesn't necessarily come from harsher punishments but rather from the coming together of criminal and victim, giving them a chance to understand one another and work to repair the harm done.
But despite the existence of programs across the country to facilitate such meetings, restorative justice has never gained mainstream traction, and now some victims' advocates say they worry such programs will be further marginalized because of the federal government's tough on crime agenda and its emphasis on incarceration.
"In reality, there's no interest from this government [in restorative justice]," said Steve Sullivan, executive director of Ottawa Victim Services and former federal ombudsman for victims of crime.
"It doesn't jive with their view of what victims want - punishment."
Some advocates say they are troubled by the government's new crime bill, particularly mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug and sex offences, because they interfere with judges' abilities to tailor their sentences and consider restorativejustice options.
"If they're locked in to mandatory minimums, it doesn't allow restorative justice to take place," said Catherine Latimer of the John Howard Society of Canada.
Not all victims' advocates feel the same way, however.
Sharon Rosenfeldt, whose 16-yearold son Daryn Johnsrude was a victim of serial killer Clifford Olson, stood alongside the justice minister in announcing the crime bill.
While she and her group Victims of Violence believe there is a role for restorative justice, she said in an interview there is a need to toughen up penalties to deal with repeat violent offenders. With longer sentences, "maybe" some lives can be turned around within prisons, she said.
Justice Ministry spokeswoman Pamela Stephens said in an email that "while restorative-justice approaches complement other criminal justice system responses to criminal behaviour, they are not intended to replace them."
A restorative-justice approach only works if victims agree to participate, offenders accept responsibility for their actions and trained facilitators are available, she added.
That said, the government has supported restorative-justice initiatives. It invested $85 million in the Aboriginal Justice Strategy, which seeks to help young or first-time offenders in aboriginal communities.
Restorative justice referrals can come from police before a charge is laid, by Crown prosecutors after a charge is laid, by a judge after a conviction or by correctional officials after a sentence has been imposed.

Studies have shown that victims who go through the process often come out more satisfied than those who go through the regular criminal justice system, and are more likely to receive restitution from offenders. Offenders are also less likely to reoffend.
The perception that participating in such a process is a cakewalk for offenders "couldn't be further from the truth," said Evelyn Zellerer, a criminology instructor at Kwantlen Polytechnic University and a restorative-justice consultant.
"It's a very rigorous process. It's not easy for someone to face their victim and their families, face what they've done and listen to the impact of what their behaviour has been."
Rather than "get tough" on crime, Canada needs to "get smart" about it, she said.
The authors of a review of the Stanley Cup riot seem to agree, saying the first responders and business people affected by the riot could teach the rioters "real lessons a judge can only lecture them about."
The report said: "Far from being a slap on the wrist this is, for many, a deeply troubling experience. But it can also be a transforming experience."
A victim of John Horace Oughton, the "Paper Bag Rapist" convicted in the 1980s of a string of sex offences in Vancouver, counts herself among those concerned about the rhetoric.
Laura, who requested that her last name not be used, said there was a time when she wanted Oughton dead - "preferably at my hands."
But she said her attitude evolved, especially after she met Oughton's brother through a restorative-justice mediator. She was able to gain a "deeper understanding" of Oughton and his family and see that they were suffering as well, erasing the "us versus them" mentality that had framed her thinking for so long.
She worries the strides the program has made could be "undermined" by Ottawa's tough on crime strategies.
"Public safety is more complex than punishment and incarceration," she said.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Comment on this story online at theprovince.com or email us at provletters@theprovince.com. Include your name and address.

© Copyright (c) The Province

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/sports/Emphasis+punishment+shuns+healing/5458093/story.html#ixzz1Z6Jj4hMY

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/sports/Emphasis+punishment+shuns+healing/5458093/story.html#ixzz1Z6JEap6v